Supreme Court: Florida Gay Adoption OK: Children Better Off; Gays Incensed

Steve Yuhas

There are few things more emotional or important than the obligation a state has to protect the welfare of children. Some states take the responsibility lightly (take New York where case workers lost children placed in foster care). Other states take their responsibility seriously and no state takes it more seriously than Florida.

On Monday the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Florida’s ban on gay adoption. Gay organizations immediately took to the airwaves to express their outrage that the Court refused to hear the case.

The challenge came from a ruling in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that disagreed with the absurd legal position gays put forward that Lawrence vs. Texas (that concluded that state sodomy laws were unconstitutional) also allowed for the adoption of children (exactly what sodomy and children had in common only the plaintiffs could understand).

The Court reasonably, and thankfully, disagreed saying that Lawrence did not invalidate "the accumulated wisdom of several millennia of human experience" that children deserve the "optimal family structure” and the state of Florida has a constitutional right to define that structure.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) issued a statement saying, “This ban hurts thousands of Florida children who deserve loving parents.” It is interesting (and telling) that the HRC chose their political director to make a statement concerning the issue.

Gay activists see the issue of adoption as a political one; they don’t see it as one dealing with the well being of children or the betterment of society.

Children have long been used as props by gay activists during their campaigns and festivals, vigils and parades. They use children to hold signs demanding “equal rights” (forget for a minute that gays have the same rights as any other American) saying things like “my two daddies are gay” or “my two mommies love me.”

The HRC and other gay organizations look at children the way that blacks looked at lunch counters and mass marches in the 1960s: symbols of oppression and normalcy.

It is not a bad strategy: children are associated with stability and the fabric and future of America; gays trotting out children during their gatherings, to gay activists, help to show a normalcy and camaraderie to America (what they don’t do is negate the effects of floats laden with thong clad dancers and men dressed as women).

Fortunately Florida recognizes that despite all of the interest groups that have poured millions of dollars into normalizing the notion that children can be raised successfully by gay “families,” nature and G-d trump the politics of re-defining family.

Nature created a perfect system whereby it takes a man and a woman to create a child; many gays and ideologues say that biology doesn’t matter and therefore sexuality is not a matter of societal importance when it comes to raising children.

Right minded thinkers must conclude differently: biology (and theology) made the continuation of the species that way because children require the nurturing of both a man and a woman.

Gay relationships are inherently unstable. The fact that some gay relationships last for long periods of time does not negate the fact that significantly more do not. Consider that in states where domestic partnerships or marriage is legal gays find more reasons to stay out of legal partnerships than to enter into them.

In January the state of California bestowed upon domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as legally married couples. One would think that gays would rush to the registrar in order to enter into legal partnerships, but the exact opposite occurred. Gays raced to the courthouse to dissolve their partnerships because they saw the responsibilities that went along with them to be incompatible with the lives they lead.

When gays had the chance to have the rights and responsibilities of marriage – they declined; why should society allow gays to have the ultimate responsibility of adopting children when they cannot accept the meager responsibility of community property?

The fight over gay adoption is a political fight for the hearts and minds of mainstream America and not a fight over the well being of children. The reason so many interest groups became involved in the ban in Florida had more to do with gaining the acceptance of America for their extreme gay agenda than it did for gays to have the right to raise children.

Gays are biologically incapable and their relationships incompatible with the raising children.

Fortunately the court saw through their argument and recognized that children do best when they have a mother and a father and if they can’t have that they can at least have a parent that doesn’t look at them as a political prop to be used at parades and protests. The Florida ban was permitted to stand.

One question that people are left to ask now is how many more political issues are gays going to attempt to alter through the courts using the newly established, never before discovered, constitutional right to sodomy?

Hopefully this rebuke will thwart their using it again, but one thing gay activists never do is learn from their mistakes so more than likely we’ll see Lawrence used again for something completely unrelated to the privacy of the bedroom.

Steve Yuhas is a columnist and talk show host on News Radio 600 KOGO in San Diego. He is a gay, conservative Jewish veteran and may be reached at steve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com